(Bear in mind, the scalp, i.e. Scooter Libby's indictment, of which he is so proud was not the official actually responsible.)
That being said, Lex addresses the issues Ackerman is blind to.
Money quote(s):
"For my own part, I would like to draw a necessarily blurry line between what Mr. Ackerman and the FBI call “main stream” American Muslims and the “pious and devout.” Because the possibility never occurs to the former at least that to be a pious and devout Muslim necessarily means super-ordinating the will of God, as expressed to his Prophet 14 centuries ago in an inalterable text, and that this potentially places the believer in conflict with the values of modern Western Civilization. Most will find a way to live with that conflict. A notable few, weak-minded or otherwise deficient, have spectacularly failed to do so."
A deeper than bumper sticker slogan knowledge is required of anyone attempting to realistically address the issue of Islamic-based terrorism and jihad.
(Is CAA an expert? Hell no! But I've got a shelf of much-read books which attest to my attempts at defeating my own ignorance of the issues.)
"Steeped in the culture of Western liberalism, he declines to even recognize this possibility: To the degree you are a good Muslim, as defined by rigorously following and promoting the entirety of the Koran (with Islam lacking as it does any centralized institution to contextualize those 7th Century scriptures in a 21st Century world, what other definition could there be?) it becomes increasingly difficult to be a good citizen.
Because the great monotheistic faiths of the world are fundamentally different, or else Samuel Huntington never would have gotten published (you don’t have to agree with the man’s conclusions to appreciate his command of history)."
Huntington himself knew, and wrote, that (I paraphrase) his "clash of civilizations" theoretical framework didn't explain everything. Modestly (for him), he put it forth as a useful theoretical lense.
(Oh, and to sell books.)
"There are Muslims who are good citizens who point out to us the more radically dangerous among them, and those of Islamic (as opposed to Islamist) traditions who eschew the active “lesser” Jihad to await God’s inevitable ordering of the world under Sharia. But to be a truly pious and devout Muslim – of the Wahabist and Salafist sects in particular – requires the follower to accept as unquestioned the guidance and example of Mohammed, and act on them, straight down the line. It is useful to remember that “Islam” means submission to God’s will, and God wills the believer to act.
(Some well-meaning civil rights activists say that to acknowledge these inconvenient truths is render oneself an “Islamophobe”, subject to the non-rebuttable charge of racism. But Islam is not a race, it is rather a set of beliefs. These beliefs are open to scrutiny and analysis.)" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
By definition, a "phobia" is an irrational fear. How someone with access to news media over the past decade or so could term a fear of Islam or islamists (or even garden variety muslims) to be wholly irrational, to the point where it merits a clinical-style name, is something CAA couldn't do with a straight face.
"In his Regensburg lecture, the man who would become Pope Benedict XVI committed an impolitic gaffe – one in the character of inadvertently blurting out the truth – when he said quoted 14th Century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (thanks, Zane), “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The lecture caused quite a stir, not because it was untrue necessarily but because it was likely to make certain people deeply unhappy. And you know how they get when they’re unhappy." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Clearly His Holiness didn't get the memo about whitewashing European history to fit politically-correct fashions.
9/15
No comments:
Post a Comment